Forgot/Reset Password

 

    CASE(S) OF THE WEEK

  • CIMB BANK BHD v. SIVADEVI SIVALINGAM [2020] 2 CLJ 151
    FEDERAL COURT, PUTRAJAYA
    AHMAD MAAROP PCA; RAMLY ALI FCJ; ALIZATUL KHAIR OSMAN FCJ;
    ROHANA YUSUF FCJ; MOHD ZAWAWI SALLEH FCJ
    [CIVIL APPEAL NO: 02(f)-62-08-2018(J)]
    15 NOVEMBER 2019

    Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act 1953 applies to an action for recovery of monies secured by a charge, but not to an action for the sale of its security. The section, hence, does not apply to an application by a chargee to enforce a charge by way of an order for sale under s. 256 or s. 260 of the National Land Code. The non-applicability of s. 21(1) does not however mean that a chargee can take forever to act or enforce a charge. Whilst the statutory defence of limitation cannot be resorted to by the defaulting chargor, he is at liberty to plead equitable defences such as laches and acquiescence, as well as 'cause to the contrary' so provided for by s. 256(3) of the Code.

    Read more




  • ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHD v. MAJLIS PERUBATAN MALAYSIA & ANOR [2020] 2 CLJ 346
    HIGH COURT MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR
    AZIZUL AZMI ADNAN J
    [CIVIL SUIT NO: 22NCVC-51-02-2014]
    24 OCTOBER 2019

    Section 52 of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency Act 2007 concerns the standard of higher education establishments generally, and specifically in the case of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC), the standards of medical care, and it was for this purpose that the section confers on MMC discretionary powers to assess and evaluate prospective applications for accreditation. Since the section also accrues for the benefit of higher education establishments that propose to offer degree programmes such as the plaintiff, the plaintiff therefore has a right for its application for accreditation to be considered fairly, and in accordance with a rational set of principles applied consistently with all applications for accreditations.

    Read more




  • ARTICLE HIGHLIGHT

    How to sack a worker for racism (according to Fair Work)

    AUSTRALIA
    Employment
    Consultant's breach of code of conduct, diversity policy amounted to valid reason for dismissal
    It goes without saying that employees should treat each other with respect and courtesy in the workplace. In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was tasked with considering a claim from a dismissed employee who alleged that remarks he made in the workplace were not offensive and did not justify his dismissal. The employee in this case was a customer save consultant and had been working for his employer for about two years. In 2018, as part of his employment, the employee attended a training course with his colleagues about identifying customer concerns over telephone. The training required the attendees to diagnose a customer’s issues as though they were a doctor. In the course of the exercise, the employee said to the trainer, “ask these guys”, meaning the three colleagues sitting next to him who he believed to be Indian. The trainer asked, “why these guys?”, and the employee responded, “they’re Indian, and all Indians are doctors”.

    Read more




  • Court awards ex-manager RM184,000 over unfair dismissal

    Employment
    Former manager misled into signing mutual separation agreement awarded RM184k
    A former Industrial Relations manager was awarded RM184,000 as compensation after the Industrial Court found that he was misled into signing a mutual separation agreement on grounds of redundancy. Industrial Court chairman D Paramalingan said N Murali Tharan Nair was forced to sign the agreement dated Feb 5, 2018, as a result of misrepresentations by senior executives of his employer, HLMG Management Co Sdn Bhd. “The claimant has succeeded in proving, on a balance of probabilities, that he had been dismissed by the company in the guise of a mutual separation scheme,” Paramalingam said in his 32-page award delivered yesterday.

    Read more




  • Lungowe v. Vedanta: How to hold multinationals liable for harmful activities

    UK
    Tort
    Landmark case, Lungowe v Vedanta, shows difficulties of regulating multinationals across borders
    Many will be watching closely as the landmark suit, Lungowe v. Vedanta, gets underway this month in the UK. The case involves 1,826 Zambian villagers who are suing global miner Vedanta Resources for environmental damage by its Zambian subsidiary, Konkola Copper Mines (KCM). The villagers won the right to sue Vedanta in England where the company is registered following a monumental UK Supreme Court decision, which caught many experts by surprise, last year. It ruled that the claimants could sue the Vedanta along with its subsidiary in England because they wouldn't be able to get access to proper justice in Zambia.

    Read more




  • Singapore judge rules burden of proof lies with government in first fake news court case

    Singapore
    Judge sides with government in first appeal against online correction notices but makes key procedural rulings
    Singapore’s High Court has ruled that the burden of proof in appeals against the city state’s controversial fake news law should lie with the government. However, in the first court judgment since the controversial law was introduced, Justice Ang Cheng Hock decided the government need only prove false online statements were made ‘on the balance of probabilities’ as opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) came into force in November and empowers the government to require websites to add ‘correction notices’ to posts the authorities maintain contain ‘false statements of fact’.

    Read more




  • Jury orders Johnson & Johnson to pay $750 million in New Jersey talc case

    US
    Health
    Johnson & Johnson told to pay US$750 million in baby powder case
    Johnson & Johnson was ordered on Thursday by a New Jersey state jury to pay punitive damages of $750 million to four plaintiffs who allege that the company’s Baby Powder caused their cancer, a ruling that will be reduced to around $185 million because of state laws, according to a lawyer for the plaintiffs and the company.

    Read more




LATEST MALAYSIAN ACTS

LATEST MALAYSIAN BILLS

LEGISLATION ALERT

  • Latest Updated (14 February 2020)
  • PU(A) 206/2019
    Income Tax (Deduction For Payment of Educational Loan of Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional By Employers on Behalf of Employees) Rules 2019
    PU(A) 205/2019
    Income Tax (Exemption) (No. 8) Order 2019
    PU(A) 161/1977
    Excise Regulations 1977
  • Latest Revoked (06 February 2020)
  • PU(A) 359/2019
    Excise (Determination of Value of Locally Manufactured Goods For the Purpose of Levying Excise Duty) Regulations 2019




Secured By Global Sign